Iifl Finance Limited vs Vijaya Auto Mobiles

Before : Anil H. Laddhad, Prothonotary & Senior Master Date : 16^th January, 2026

FOR HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL :

31 CHOL/681/2025 ) Ms. Pooja Singh, Advocate for the applicant. in ) ARBPL/25972/2025 ) P.C.: The present Chamber Order is e-filed by the ) applicant for setting aside Order dated ) 26.09.2025, rejecting captioned Petition under ) O.S.Rule 986 for non-compliance of office ) objections. ) ) Ld. Advocate for the applicant made a ) statement that respondents were served with ) the Chamber Order and Affidavit of Service is ) e-filed. Despite service, none appeared for the ) respondents. ) ) Heard ld. Advocate for the applicant. Perused ) Affidavit in Support of Advocate, contents of ) which are self-explanatory. It is contended ) that office objections were complied with, ) however, office again raised objections. Said ) office objections could not be complied with ) since Advocate for the applicant was unwell ) and under medical tests/treatment. Ld. ) Advocate for the applicant submits that for the ) same reason, delay of 14 days caused in filing ) present Chamber Order, which was not ) intentional. Hence, it is prayed that present ) Chamber Order may be allowed as prayed by ) condoning delay. ) ) Contentions raised in Affidavit, remain ) uncontested for want of resistance on the part ) of respondents. Moreover, substantial justice ) cannot be denied on technical ground. I am of ) the opinion that applicant should get one ) opportunity to pursue with captioned Petition. ) No prejudice would cause to the respondents ) since they can contest Petition on its own ) merits. However, it would be just and proper ) to impose certain cost on the applicant so that ) the applicant would be more diligent in

¶4

Contentions raised in Affidavit, remain uncontested for want of resistance on the part of respondents. Moreover, substantial justice cannot be denied on technical ground. I am of the opinion that applicant should get one opportunity to pursue with captioned Petition. No prejudice would cause to the respondents since they can contest Petition on its own merits. However, it would be just and proper to impose certain cost on the applicant so that the applicant would be more diligent in

¶5

2 Before : Anil H. Laddhad, Prothonotary & Senior Master Date : 16^th January, 2026

¶6

contd…. ) pursuing with captioned Petition. Hence, in CHOL/681/2025 ) the interest of justice, delay of 14 days caused in ) in filing present Chamber Order is condoned ARBPL/25972/2025 ) and present Chamber Order is granted as ) prayed subject to payment of cost of Rs. ) 2,500/-, to be paid to The High Court ) Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai’ – ) Bank of India, Mumbai (Main) Branch, ) Account No. 000120110001337, IFSC CODE : ) BKID0000001. ) ) Upon payment of cost, captioned Petition be ) restored to file and the petitioner to remove ) office objections of Petition and get the same ) registered and/or numbered by ) filing/uploading compliance praecipe within ) two weeks from the date of payment of cost, ) failing Petition to stand rejected for non) compliance of office objections under O.S.Rule ) 986.

¶7

pursuing with captioned Petition. Hence, in the interest of justice, delay of 14 days caused in filing present Chamber Order is condoned and present Chamber Order is granted as prayed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,500/-, to be paid to The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai’ – Bank of India, Mumbai (Main) Branch, Account No. 000120110001337, IFSC CODE : BKID0000001.

¶8

Date : 16.01.2026

¶9

Prothonotary and Senior Master

¶10

Digitally signed by RAJEEV RAJEEV VIJAY VIJAY ACHARYA ACHARYA Date: 2026.01.17 10:49:36 +0530

Iifl Finance Limited v. Vijaya Auto Mobiles

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iifl Finance Limited v. Vijaya Auto Mobiles

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dorothy Jane Devdas alias Dorothy Devdas vs Charles Gnanam Devdas

Homi Farrok Kaka vs Farrok Noshirwan Kaka

The New Green Chambers Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, through Its Chairman Abdul H Shaikh vs the Chief Officer, Mbr and R Board ( a Mhada Unit)

Kalpana Vijay Shah vs Mangalji Devchand Dhabalia alias Mangal Deochand Dhabalia (Deceased)

Grace Fernandes and 2 Ors. vs Christopher Pavey and Anr.

Sudakshina Dipankar Sarkar Alias Sudakshina Sarkar vs Dipankar Debasis Sarkar Alias Dipankar Sarkar